Now comes Time’s Karl Vick (formerly of the Washington Post) to explain “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace,” which is the title Times gives to Vick’s cover story. (Some might take issue with the premise.) As Victor Davis Hanson explains, Vick argues that the Jews are so obsessed with making money that they don’t much care what happens in the future: “You see, Vick has discovered that the rather worldly Israelis, after stealing their land from Arabs, don’t much care for the hard negotiations that the Obama administration is now engaged in (‘big elemental thoughts’), not when it is a matter of — yes, making money[.]”
Bret Stephens explores Vick’s essay in “Rhymes with Fagin.” Stephens writes:
Nearly every Israeli has a child, sibling, boyfriend or parent in the army. Nearly every Israeli has been to the funeral of a fallen soldier, or a friend killed in a terrorist attack. Most Israeli homes and businesses come equipped with safe rooms or bomb shelters; every Israeli owns a gas mask. The whole country exists under the encroaching shadows of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the prospect of a nuclear Iran. How many Americans, to say nothing of Europeans, can say the same about their own lives?
Yet when it comes to scoring cheap shots against the Jewish state, Time is not the sort of magazine to allow the obvious to disturb a prejudiced hypothesis. Can the magazine point to equally pointed cover stories about internal Palestinian affairs and what, perchance, they mean for the peace process? I checked: It last did so in April 2002 with a largely sympathetic portrait of Yasser Arafat “All Boxed In” by an invading Israeli army.
Omri Ceren has more here supporting Stephens’ mocking thought that “[m]aybe there’s something in the magazine’s DNA.”
UPDATE: Ed Driscoll draws on Time’s recent cover to ask…
Ed puts Victor Davis Hanson’s indictment on the putative Time cover: “The recent Time piece on Israel is probably the most anti-Semitic essay I have ever read in a mainstream publication.”